Medical Marijuana Dispensaries – Page 2

2 May 2013

Some Dispensaries Not Too Thrilled By Legal Pot

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Medical marijuana groups are wary of a bill that would legalize and tax marijuana in Maine.

Estimates nationwide suggest if marijuana were legal, much of the profit gained by medical retailers and black-market criminals would disappear.

That worries Glenn Peterson, the owner of Canuvo, a Biddeford medical-marijuana dispensary. He also serves as president of the Maine Association of Dispensary Operators, a trade group made up of five Maine dispensary owners.

Peterson said his group is concerned that the bill could “eliminate the medical marijuana industry” in Maine.

“I tend to be libertarian,” he said. “On the other hand, I am quite protective of my dispensary.”

Paul McCarrier, a lobbyist for Medical Marijuana Caregivers of Maine, an advocacy group for state-licensed caregivers who grow marijuana for small groups of medical patients, said his group is opposing the bill. McCarrier said it would favor dispensaries through licensing requirements, which could regulate small-time growers out of existence.

“The scope of protections for the individual to cultivate for themselves is too limited,” he said.

The head of a national group that has supported the Maine bill and similar proposals nationwide says his organization has run into opposition to legalization from medical-marijuana groups in other states.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, said that “probably the most vexing thing that we’re facing right now ( in pushing for legalization ) is not the government or law enforcement agencies,” he said. “It comes from, oddly put, anti-prohibitionists versus anti-prohibitionists.”

The Maine bill to legalize marijuana, sponsored by Rep. Diane Russell, D-Portland, is a sweeping measure. Chiefly, it would allow those 21 and older to possess 21/2 ounces of marijuana and six plants.

It also would license cultivators, producers of products containing marijuana, retailers and laboratories, giving preference for licensing to officials at existing dispensaries.

David Boyer, Maine political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, a nationwide group backing Russell’s bill, said the provision to give preference to existing dispensaries was partially due to a drafting error in the bill, and he and Russell are open to amending it. Boyer has been lobbying legislators to support the bill.

Peterson said his group is lobbying for dispensaries to be granted automatic cultivation, retail and production licenses. He said it wouldn’t oppose the bill then.

McCarrier said it isn’t clear whether caregivers are on the same plane as dispensaries in the bill.

Russell’s bill would assess a $50-per-ounce tax on cultivators, 75 percent of which Russell has said she wants to divert to the state’s General Fund. Under her plan, the rest would go toward substance abuse programs, marijuana research and implementing the act.

Only two states, Colorado and Washington, have legalized marijuana, and they did so in 2012 referendum votes. Marijuana possession is illegal under federal law, so even states with medical-marijuana programs are running afoul of that law.

In those states and others, legalization efforts ran into patches of opposition from medical-marijuana groups as well.

St. Pierre suggested that’s because of economic protectionism: Simply put, when marijuana becomes legal, consumption will go up and prices will fall sharply.

McCarrier said it’s not about protecting money, but protecting “the ability for caregivers to continue to operate.”

Peterson said he sells marijuana for $360 per ounce; McCarrier said caregivers sell for between $175 and $250 per ounce. Street prices could be higher or lower.

A paper by a group of marijuana researchers published this month in the Oregon Law Review says the American marijuana market is a $30 billion industry annually. But modern farming techniques could supply that demand for “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

So, the paper says, most of those billions could be captured by businesses or states, but “only if competitive pressure does not drive prices down.”

Peterson said he has hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in his operation, and he’s not sure what would happen to it under legalization.

“I have no investors. I don’t take a salary,” he said. “But that’s what you have to do to have a program in this state.”

Medical marijuana wouldn’t be taxed at $50 an ounce, according to Russell’s proposal, and Boyer said he doesn’t want to affect the medical system “in any bad way.”

Still, “it’s kind of an evil trade-off,” Peterson said of the tax on recreational marijuana. “You can have it legally, but it’s going to cost you.” Russell has said the price drop after legalization would more than make up for the tax.

On taxes, a fine line would have to be walked to turn the average consumer to the new, recreational market. If the marijuana tax is too high, people will likely seek the black market or a doctor’s recommendation for patient status, say many working on tax proposals in other states.

Colorado and Washington are establishing regulations for their legal programs. They are seeking to establish a tax system that strikes those balances.

According to The New York Times, Colorado is considering excise and sales taxes of up to 30 percent combined on recreational marijuana. In Washington state, the Times said three levels of taxes will be levied on producers, processors and retailers. Consumers will pay a 44 percent effective rate.

The $50-per-ounce rate has been discussed in other places. California considered a bill that would use that rate in 2009, and lawmakers effectively killed it in 2010.

Beau Kilmer, a drug policy researcher for the RAND Corp., a nonprofit think tank, said there are a number of ways that regulators could tax marijuana, including per ounce and by the plant’s chemical makeup.

However, it’s too early to tell what would work best, so Kilmer suggests flexibility in the tax system.

“If large barriers are created to changing the taxes, it’s going to make it a heck of a lot harder to update them based on new research,” he said.

That lack of clarity makes Boyer, of the Marijuana Policy Project, wonder why some are opposing Russell’s bill so soon, before a legislative committee gets to amend it.

“I’m a little disappointed that some people are jumping the gun on this bill before it’s a final bill,” Boyer said. “I think everyone would benefit from ending marijuana prohibition.”

McCarrier said that philosophically, he could support legalization, but “the devil’s in the details.”

Peterson also said he could support the right plan, but “I would not want to do anything that disrupted the medical side of things. It really puts a death knell to the program.”

For St. Pierre, the NORML director, the schism is particularly divisive for the overarching cause of his group for years — totally legal marijuana.

“For me, it is a necessary but fascinating footnote in history that some of the most active opposition is oddly coming from those who are fellow travelers of the road, shall we say — those who enjoy and use marijuana, be it for medical reasons or recreational,” he said.

Source: Morning Sentinel (Waterville, ME)
Copyright: 2013 MaineToday Media, Inc.
Website: http://www.onlinesentinel.com/
Author: Michael Shepherd

13 Apr 2013

Bill Introduced in Congress Would Fix MMJ Conflict

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A bill introduced in Congress on Friday would fix the conflict between the federal government’s marijuana prohibition and state laws that allow medical or recreational use.

California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said his bill, which has three Republican and three Democratic sponsors, would assure that state laws on pot are respected by the feds.

The measure would amend the Controlled Substances Act to make clear that individuals and businesses, including marijuana dispensaries, who comply with state marijuana laws are immune from federal prosecution.

“This bipartisan bill represents a common-sense approach that establishes federal government respect for all states’ marijuana laws,” Rohrabacher said in a news release. “It does so by keeping the federal government out of the business of criminalizing marijuana activities in states that don’t want it to be criminal.”

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws, and two states, Washington and Colorado, last fall became the first to pass laws legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana.

The U.S. Justice Department has not said how it intends to respond to the Washington and Colorado votes. It could sue to block legal pot sales from ever happening, on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

President Barack Obama has said going after marijuana users in states where it’s legal is not a priority. But the administration has raided some medical marijuana dispensaries it sees as little more than fronts for commercial marijuana sales.

Several other measures have also been introduced to change U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize the industrial production of hemp and establish a hefty federal pot tax in states where it’s legal. Any changes this year are considered a longshot.

Republican Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Don Young of Alaska and Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Steve Cohen of Tennessee and Jared Polis of Colorado co-sponsored Rohrabacher’s bill.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Gene Johnson, The Associated Press
Published: April 12, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

30 Oct 2012

Should Medical Marijuana Be State Or Federally

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Federal authorities closed a number of medical marijuana dispensaries throughout Downtown Los Angeles in September as part of an effort to cut down on the sale and use of the drug, which is legal in California for medical purposes but still considered illegal by the federal government.

This month, the Drug Enforcement Administration followed up by sending warning letters and revisiting several dispensaries. This series of shutdowns was not only unnecessary, but it was also a violation of state rights and an indication of broken promises on the part of President Barack Obama. As marijuana regulation is becoming a hot button issue in the presidential race, such an infringement on an individual state’s rights is unacceptable.

Given the size and scope of the federal crackdown operation — it began in San Diego and recently spread to Los Angeles — it’s obvious that significant planning went into these raids. Obama deliberately went back on his word and has been doing so for a long time. This is an unusual move so close to the election but, more importantly, it challenges the legitimacy of California’s laws.

Whether or not a state allows the sale of medical marijuana, the fact remains that marijuana is federally illegal, so it would seem the owners of dispensaries should have known the risks associated with their businesses. They thought, however, that under the Obama administration they could operate without having to worry about being shut down because of early campaign promises.

Beyond broken campaign promises, however, the crackdown signals a disconnect between state and federal government and also raises a larger issue on state rights. The federal government took advantage of the disconnect between California and the federal government to fine and shut down target dispensaries. This is more than just a backward step in the legalization debate, it’s a disregard for the rights of individual states and offers a critical example of overbearing federal power. To maintain a better balance between federal and state, medical marijuana regulation must be returned to states’ control.

The issue of medical marijuana has largely been ignored in the 2012 presidential election, and understandably so. Federal versus state control of medical marijuana has no bearing on the United States’ global standing or on foreign policy matters. And while marijuana’s legalization generates substantial tax revenue, there are far bigger fish to fry when it comes to solving the nation’s deficit. All in all, medical marijuana might be a hotly debated topic, but it isn’t a particularly significant one in terms of impact. For the federal government to waste time, energy and money on medical marijuana enforcement is simply inefficient. By allowing states to control the regulation of their own medical marijuana dispensaries, the time and money the federal government is currently wasting can be re-directed somewhere much more worthwhile.

If the federal government took over the regulation of marijuana dispensaries, not only would its leadership be inefficient, it would potentially take away jobs from those who own legitimate, legal dispensaries. For every illegally run collective, it’s important to remember there is a legitimate non-profit organization that employs Americans and provides free marijuana to patients who can’t afford it but need it for actual medical purposes.

We need the government to be effective and consistent. The global society and economy is at a point where America will be in a very dangerous position if some important issues are not dealt with directly and in a consistent manner. Especially considering that medical marijuana is much less consequential than many other issues currently facing the federal government, wasting resources to take away states’ rights is something the government can’t afford to be doing.

– – Burke Gibson is a sophomore majoring in economics and is the Daily Trojan’s Chief Copy Editor.

While the nation’s attention remains fixated on the upcoming Nov. 6 election, the Drug Enforcement Administration has been systematically cracking down on medical marijuana operations across California, most recently in Los Angeles — even though such operations are 100 percent legal statewide. But marijuana is still federally classified as an illegal drug, and President Barack Obama’s administration has been making renewed efforts to enforce federal law, however much they conflict with state and individual rights.

This begs the question: Should medical marijuana be regulated on a federal or state level?

Because marijuana in its legal form is a health benefit, no state should have the authority to take that away. The current administration’s crackdowns are not the right way to regulate, but they are right to take action when state regulation is not working. Medical marijuana must be federally regulated to ensure that medical access is provided for all who need it, regardless of what state they live in.

In 1970, marijuana was categorized by the government in 1970 as a Schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs must meet three conditions to be labeled as such: the drug has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Despite research that has proven all three of these conditions to be false, marijuana remains an illegal drug within the Schedule I category.

Medical marijuana, however, is legal in 17 states, including California, and measures proposing some level of legalization are currently pending in six others. The state legalization movement is growing fast, and as it does, so is the tension between the conflicting doctrines in state and federal regulation of the drug. This tension only contributes to further problems for everyone involved — business owners, medical patients and President Barack Obama himself, whose Daily Beast-dubbed “war on weed” might be angering some of his supporters. Having different laws in different states on the legality of a substance that is ridiculously easy to transport only creates chaos in the legal system and distracts from the fact that this is an issue about medical access and benefits, not governmental powers.

Federal regulation is opposed by those who see medical marijuana as a state issue that should be dealt with at a local, specific level. Nearly 1 million patients nationwide depend on medical marijuana for their health and are in accordance with state laws, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Marijuana has been proven to provide relief for serious conditions such as cancer or AIDS — relief that has not been reproduced by any other drug or medicine. So what about cancer or AIDS patients who live in the 27 states where medical marijuana remains illegal?

Should they bide their time until a ballot measure passes? Especially in incredibly conservative states, the likelihood of such a measure passing is small, considering Proposition 19 didn’t pass in liberal California in 2010. State efforts, as the past couple years have demonstrated, take too long to succeed and do not guarantee the results that patients in need deserve.

Though no debate over the regulation of marijuana can ignore the rampant recreational use and illegal sale and purchase of the drug, regulation must be re-framed as a medical issue. Medical marijuana is a health benefit that all Americans should be able to take advantage of if they need to do so — and federal regulation would guarantee that.

The current federal administration, however, has failed to acknowledge that. The DEA’s recent efforts to mend the gap between state and federal government are wrong and only perpetuate inconsistency and conflict. Raids, crackdowns, warning letters and the like are not the answer. It will take a change at the federal, not the state level, to effectively ensure safe and guaranteed use of medical marijuana for Americans in all states.

– – Elena Kadvany is a senior majoring in Spanish and is the Daily Trojan’s Editorial Director. Point/Counterpoint runs Fridays.

Source: Daily Trojan (U of Southern CA Edu)
Copyright: 2012 Daily Trojan
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.dailytrojan.com/
Authors: Burke Gibson and Elena Kadvany

9 Oct 2012

Marijuana Only for the Sick?

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

One year after federal law enforcement officials began cracking down on California’s medical marijuana industry with a series of high-profile arrests around the state, they finally moved into Los Angeles last month, giving 71 dispensaries until Tuesday to shut down.

At the same time, because of a well-organized push by a new coalition of medical marijuana supporters, the City Council last week repealed a ban on the dispensaries that it had passed only a couple of months earlier.

Despite years of trying fruitlessly to regulate medical marijuana, California again finds itself in a marijuana-laced chaos over a booming and divisive industry.

Nobody even knows how many medical marijuana dispensaries are in Los Angeles. Estimates range from 500 to more than 1,000. The only certainty, supporters and opponents agree, is that they far outnumber Starbucks.

“That’s the ongoing, ‘Alice in Wonderland’ circus of L.A.,” said Michael Larsen, president of the Neighborhood Council in Eagle Rock, a middle-class community that has 15 dispensaries within a one-and-a-half-mile radius of the main commercial area, many of them near houses. “People here are desperate, and there’s nothing they can do.”

Though the neighborhood’s dispensaries were among those ordered to close by Tuesday, many are still operating. As he looked at a young man who bounded out of the Together for Change dispensary on Thursday morning, Mr. Larsen said, “I’m going to go out on a limb, but that’s not a cancer patient.”

In the biggest push against medical marijuana since California legalized it in 1996, the federal authorities have shut at least 600 dispensaries statewide since last October. California’s four United States attorneys said the dispensaries violated not only federal law, which considers all possession and distribution of marijuana to be illegal, but state law, which requires operators to be nonprofit primary caregivers to their patients and to distribute marijuana strictly for medical purposes.

While announcing the actions against the 71 dispensaries, André Birotte Jr., the United States attorney for the Central District of California, indicated that it was only the beginning of his campaign in Los Angeles. Prosecutors filed asset forfeiture lawsuits against three dispensaries and sent letters warning of criminal charges to the operators and landlords of 68 others, a strategy that has closed nearly 97 percent of the targeted dispensaries elsewhere in the district, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the United States attorney.

Vague state laws governing medical marijuana have allowed recreational users of the drug to take advantage of the dispensaries, say supporters of the Los Angeles ban and the federal crackdown. Here on the boardwalk of Venice Beach, pitchmen dressed all in marijuana green approach passers-by with offers of a $35, 10-minute evaluation for a medical marijuana recommendation for everything from cancer to appetite loss.

Nearly 180 cities across the state have banned dispensaries, and lawsuits challenging the bans have reached the State Supreme Court. In more liberal areas, some 50 municipalities have passed medical marijuana ordinances, but most have suspended the regulation of dispensaries because of the federal offensive, according to Americans for Safe Access, a group that promotes access to medical marijuana. San Francisco and Oakland, the fiercest defenders of medical marijuana, have continued to issue permits to new dispensaries.

In 2004, shortly after the state effectively allowed the opening of storefront dispensaries, there were only three or four in Los Angeles, experts said. The number soon swelled into the hundreds before the city imposed a moratorium. But dispensaries continued to proliferate by exploiting a loophole in the moratorium even as lawsuits restricted the city’s ability to pass an ordinance. Over the summer, the City Council voted to ban dispensaries.

Anticipating the ban, the medical marijuana industry “that historically had not worked together very well” began organizing a counterattack, said Dan Rush, an official with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which formed a coalition with Americans for Safe Access and the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance, a group of dispensary owners. The coalition raised $250,000, mostly from dispensaries, to gather the signatures necessary to place a referendum to overturn the ban on the ballot next March, said Don Duncan, California director for Americans for Safe Access.

Instead of allowing the referendum to proceed in March, when elections for mayor and City Council seats will also be held, the council on Tuesday voted to simply rescind the ban. José Huizar, one of only two council members to vote against the repeal, and the strongest backer of the ban, said the city was not in a position to fight an increasingly well-organized industry.

Mr. Huizar said California’s medical marijuana laws, considered the nation’s weakest, must be changed to better control the production and distribution of marijuana, as well as limit access to only real patients.

“Unless that happens, local cities are going to continue to play the cat-and-mouse game with the dispensaries,” he said, adding that the industry had fought attempts here to regulate it. “These are folks who are just out to protect their profits, and they do that by having as little regulation or oversight as possible by the City of Los Angeles.”

But coalition officials say they favor stricter regulations here.Rigo Valdez, director of organizing for the local union, which represents 500 dispensary workers in Los Angeles, said he would support an ordinance restricting the number of dispensaries to about 125 and keeping them away from schools and one another.

“We would be able to respect communities by staying away from sensitive-use areas while providing safe access for medical marijuana patients,” he said.

Such an ordinance would shut down many dispensaries catering to recreational users, said Yamileth Bolanos, president of the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance and owner of a dispensary, the PureLife Alternative Wellness Center. “I felt we needed a medical situation with respect, not with all kinds of music going, tattoos and piercings in the face,” she said. “We’re normal people. Normal patients can come and acquire medicine.”

But the hundreds of dispensaries that would be put out of business will fight the federal crackdown, as some are already doing.

In downtown Los Angeles, where most of the dispensaries were included in the order to close, workers were renovating the storefront of the Downtown Collective. Inside, house music was being played in a lobby decorated to conjure “Scarface,” a poster of which hung on a wall.

“We don’t worry about this,” the manager said of the federal offensive, declining to give his name. “It’s between the lawyers.”

David Welch, a lawyer who is representing 15 of the 71 dispensaries and who is involved in a lawsuit challenging a ban at the State Supreme Court, said the federal clampdown would fail.

“Medical marijuana dispensaries are very much like what they distribute: they’re weeds,” he said. “You cut them down, you leave, and then they sprout back up.”

A version of this article appeared in print on October 8, 2012, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Marijuana Only for the Sick? A Farce, Some in Los Angeles Say.

Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Norimitsu Onishi
Published: October 8, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/

4 Oct 2012

L.A. To Repeal Ban on Medical Marijuana Shops

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The Los Angeles City Council voted to rescind a newly enacted ban on storefront medical marijuana shops on Tuesday, allowing the city to avoid a referendum next year that some officials said would likely succeed in reversing the prohibition.

The council, in a blow to an industry that operates in violation of federal law, voted in July to ban pot dispensaries and replace them with a system that would allow up to three patients to collectively grow marijuana.

But medical marijuana advocates collected in August the necessary 27,425 valid signatures to put the decision to a March 2013 referendum. Under city rules, that number of signatures – 10 percent of the total number of votes cast in the city’s last mayoral election – put the ban on hold until the vote.

The backtracking comes a week after federal authorities moved to close about 70 such dispensaries in the city in a renewed effort to crack down on the operations through the use of asset-forfeiture lawsuits and warning letters.

“Legally it appears that almost nothing we do is a surefire approach,” City Councilman Paul Koretz said during the meeting on Tuesday.

“But I think the surefire least positive approach is to have a ban, but have it on hold … have it fail in March and basically be back where we started,” said Koretz, who voted in favor of repeal.

Pot remains illegal under federal law, but 17 states and the District of Columbia allow it as medicine. Los Angeles has between about 500 and 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries, more than any other city in the nation.

Medical marijuana in California, which in 1996 became the first state to allow it, is used to treat everything from cancer to anxiety, and many police officials complain recreational users are taking advantage of the system.

The Los Angeles City Council’s decision to repeal the dispensary ban must return for a second vote next week because the 11-2 vote was not a unanimous one.

Separately, the council approved a resolution asking the state Legislature to give municipalities clear guidelines on how to regulate the distribution of medical marijuana.

Councilman Mitchell Englander complained that many badly run dispensaries in the city have “ruined it” for a minority of storefronts that are truly helping patients.

City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who has cancer and diabetes and has taken medical marijuana, made an impassioned plea during the meeting for allowing a limited number of dispensaries.

“Where does anybody go, even a councilman go, to get his medical marijuana?,” Rosendahl said in a hoarse voice, moments after revealing that doctors told him he might not have “much time to live.”

Reporting By Alex Dobuzinskis; editing by Todd Eastham and Cynthia Johnston

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: Alex Dobuzinskis, Reuters
Published: October 2, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Thomson Reuters

14 Sep 2012

Commentary: Medical Marijuana and Taxes

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

An obscure tax law, intended to prevent cocaine kingpins from deducting yachts and other necessities, may alter Boulder’s landscape. Experts say it may shutter dispensaries nationwide.

Fourteen years before any medical marijuana laws existed, US Tax Code was amended because a convicted coke dealer had successfully deducted guns, boats, and bribes. Ever since, Section 280E has banned deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances.”

Because marijuana is a “controlled substance,” dispensaries are taxed on all revenue — without subtracting rent, payroll, or supplies. The IRS has embarked on an auditing spree, slapping some dispensaries with tax bills in the millions. (The representative who sponsored 280E in 1982, observing its current invocation, now leads the effort to reform his own law.)

Aware of the threat, Colorado dispensaries have tread carefully. Some calculated the square footage used for selling meds, versus the area used for discussing and observing said meds — and wrote off rent for the latter. Some claimed that their employees multi-tasked, and deducted a portion of payroll for non-trafficking pursuits.

These number-crunching taxpayers were abiding Tax Court’s 2007 decision (C.H.A.M.P. v. Commissioner): Caregiving services were separate from trafficking, the court had ruled, and could be deducted. Dispensaries pay a higher tax rate than other businesses — but they’ve been able to keep the doors open.

Until now. In August, the Tax Court unanimously reached its second decision on 280E: It precludes dispensaries “from deducting any expense related to the business in that the business is a single business that consists of trafficking in a controlled substance.”

No more multi-tasking staff or separate “wellness spaces.” Your stores’ rent, employees, marketing, supplies — what might seem like normal business expenses — are all part of your trafficking. Growing controlled substances (still just as federally illegal as trafficking them) was somehow omitted by the lawmakers who wrote 280E in 1982. So you can deduct rent and supplies for your grow operation — great news, if you operate your dispensary out of your warehouse, or poorly maintain your storefront and pay your employees terrible wages. In Boulder, your dispensary and warehouse must be separate, and running a retail establishment isn’t cheap. It’s a troubling choice: “We either change our 2011 taxes, and suddenly owe the IRS far more than we earned this year,” says one Boulder dispensary owner who for obvious reasons would rather not be identified, “or we leave them and wait for an audit.” If audited, he’ll likely receive a tax bill high enough to sink his small business.

Owning a dispensary here was costly already. To comply with state regulations, you must: Install enough state-of-the-art surveillance to capture each moment of your plants’ lives from every angle; build the appropriate number of doors, bathrooms, and hallways for the amount of marijuana you plan to grow; fork over at least $10,000 in fees every time you need to change your dispensary’s name, location, or owner/investor lineup — and at least $10,000 annually to remain open, whether or not you’ve adjusted your name/location/ownership to comply with other changing regulations.

Now it’s even harder for Colorado dispensaries to profit, thanks to their multiplying taxes. One small-business owner in Boulder expects to owe an additional $100,000 a year — money he doesn’t have, because he’s invested it in his business.

Yes, our country needs tax dollars. But dispensaries aren’t the only businesses selling controlled substances: Others sell Oxycodone, Vicodin, morphine. In 2007, the US pharmaceutical industry collected $315 billion, and their revenue keeps rising. If 280E was enforced, their taxes would go a long way towards reducing our national deficit.

But the pharmaceutical industry enjoys a relaxed tax rate, about 40 percent less than other industries, according to a Public Citizen report. Those companies get tax breaks for paying their executives high stock-option-supplemented salaries. (At least one pharma giant paid its CEO more than it paid the government in taxes last year.) They receive tax credits and subsidies for research and development. Tax dollars fund most pharmaceutical R&D, so how much is the industry really spending? None of your business. Thanks to a nine-year legal battle the industry fought and won in Supreme Court (Bowsher v. Merck and Co.), they don’t have to disclose R&D records.

No disclosure needed: It’s just medicine. Dispensary owners only have to sign away privacy rights and submit a 22-page application measuring their “moral character.” (Question #672D: What is the value of your spouse’s great-aunt’s stock portfolio divided by the average age of your pets?) Even extraneous MMJ folks like me can’t escape the disclosure demands. The state department of revenue has, currently on file, a diagram mapping of the bodily locations of my tattoos. (Not a joke.)

Pharmaceutical giants justify their secrecy and skimpy taxes by citing the high “risk” they face. If only the marijuana industry was riskier. Like, if crop failures due to pests were increasing because inspectors now tramp through grow after grow without changing clothes; or if MMJ grows were now especially vulnerable to break-ins, due to state regulations now requiring that their locations be made public. Or if, say, dispensaries could be shut down by the federal government at any moment.

Both the marijuana industry and the federal government face changes in November, when Colorado votes on legalizing marijuana, and the country decides between candidates whose campaigns focus on taxes and small business. In a safer, healthier, more economically-stable America, marijuana would be legal — or would at least be a Schedule II drug like Oxycodone, not a Schedule I drug like heroin. That wouldn’t be a full victory for MMJ — but at least the taxes would be easier.

Cecelia Gilboy owns Colorado Quality Collective, the first wholesale marijuana brokerage licensed by the state.

Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Author: Cecelia Gilboy
Published: September 13, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Boulder Weekly
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.boulderweekly.com/

7 Sep 2012

L.A. Pot Ban Blocked for Now

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A ban on storefront pot dispensaries here won’t go into effect Thursday after advocates for medical marijuana successfully petitioned to block it, the latest skirmish in the battle over how local governments around the nation should regulate pot businesses.

After years of failed attempts to control the number of pot shops and their operations here, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed an ordinance in late July that made storefront dispensaries illegal by modifying language in the city’s municipal code.

Last week, medical-marijuana advocates submitted about 50,000 signatures to overturn the ban, nearly twice the number needed, according to the Los Angeles City Clerk’s office. Once the city clerk verifies the signatures, the council will have to decide whether to repeal the ordinance or place the issue on the ballot next year.

This city’s unsuccessful efforts to regulate marijuana businesses have taken center stage in a statewide and national debate. Even as the federal government steps up efforts to crack down on dispensary sales of the drug, illegal under U.S. law, 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes, according to Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.

An ASA spokesman said California was the first state to popularize brick-and-mortar pot shops, typically denoted with a leaf or cross symbol, and the nation’s largest state still counts the most pot shops.

A 1996 voter-approved initiative allows people with a doctor’s recommendation to grow and use marijuana for medical reasons in California. According to an attorney for the city of Los Angeles, there is no mention of dispensaries in that law.

“The state voter initiative envisioned a kibbutz model,” said Deputy City Attorney Bill Carter. “It’s morphed into a Starbucks model.”

Complicating the issue for California cities is a tangle of competing lawsuits. Last year, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Long Beach, just south of Los Angeles, couldn’t use a lottery system to limit the number of pot shops, because controlling the distribution of medical marijuana violates federal law. The state Supreme Court recently dismissed the case.

The state Supreme Court is expected to take up other cases addressing the issue of whether municipalities can ban pot shops, but not for several months.

Although many California municipalities ban pot sales, about 50 jurisdictions allow sales, while regulating things like the number of dispensaries, their locations and hours of operation, according to Don Duncan, California director of ASA.

In 2007, when fewer than 200 dispensaries were operating in Los Angeles, city officials passed a moratorium to block new ones from opening. But hundreds more opened anyway, exploiting an exemption for dispensaries that could show they faced “hardship.”

There are currently about 1,000 dispensaries in the city, according to Councilman Paul Koretz, who represents parts of the city’s west side.

On the same day the City Council passed the ban, Mr. Koretz proposed that city attorneys prepare a separate ordinance allowing dispensaries that were open before 2008 to remain in business. Mr. Koretz said he hoped the new ordinance, once it proceeds through a clearance process, would be approved by the City Council before the ban comes up for a citywide vote.

For now, the proliferation continues. In the east side neighborhood of Eagle Rock, about 15 dispensaries have sprouted up recently, attracting customers from the nearby communities of Pasadena and Glendale, where dispensaries are banned.

Michael Larsen, president of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council, said he isn’t opposed to medicinal marijuana but said the shops are a “nuisance” in the community. Loitering, littering and reselling are serious problems around the dispensaries, Mr. Larsen said.

“It’s easier to open a pot shop than a yogurt shop in Eagle Rock,” Mr. Larsen said. “They just do it and start raking in the cash.”

Annie Lam, a manager at Hyperion Healing in the nearby neighborhood of Silver Lake, said a citywide ban would be “harsh” for many of her shop’s clients who use marijuana to curtail side effects from AIDS, cancer drugs and other conditions. State law allows people with a prescription to grow their own cannabis, she said, but for many that isn’t a viable option.

“They’re frustrated,” she said. “Everyone still needs their medication.”

A version of this article appeared September 6, 2012, on page A3 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: L.A. Pot Ban Is Blocked.

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Erica E. Phillips
Published: September 5, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.wsj.com/

6 Sep 2012

Initiative Or No, Federal Law Trumps State On Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Suppose voters decided that they’ve had it with federal drug rules that make marijuana an illegal substance akin to heroin or cocaine, and they change Washington state law to make marijuana legal.

Not in all instances, not for everyone, not at any time. But for adults, in regulated quantities, for limited uses.

While that might be a fair shorthand description of what Initiative 502 proposes this November, this isn’t just a hypothetical scenario about the future. It’s also a description of the past. In 1998, Washington voters “legalized” marijuana for medical uses, even though the federal government said at the time, and still does, the drug belongs on the list of controlled substances that have no legal medical use.

Fourteen years later, state officials still struggle with developing a system to regulate medical marijuana production and sale, while the U.S. Justice Department continues to prosecute “dispensaries” under federal drug trafficking statutes for selling pot to state-approved medicinal smokers unwilling or unable to grow it for themselves.

Supporters of I-502 — which would allow for the possession and consumption of small amounts of marijuana by adults but keep it illegal for minors and anyone operating a vehicle — say it will free local law enforcement and state courts from the cost of marijuana enforcement. The prosecution, defense, court and jail costs of those cases cost Washington governments more than $200 million between 2000 and 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington recently estimated.

Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart said the chance to lighten the load on local police and avoid filling local courts and jails makes I-502 a good choice. While there’s no guarantee what federal drug agents and prosecutors will do, the chance to begin discussions also would be a plus, he said.

“If nobody acts, nothing’s going to happen,” he said.

I-502 won’t stop federal officials from enforcing the law, most concede. But it will spark discussions on how to shift from individual users to large criminal organizations bringing drugs across state and national borders, said Pete Holmes, the Seattle city attorney and a supporter of the initiative.

“It would take a great deal of hubris to just brush it aside,” Holmes said.

The state’s federal prosecutors won’t even talk about what they would do if voters approve I-502.

“We’re not making plans right now,” said Mike Ormsby, U.S. attorney for Eastern Washington, adding he’s had no discussions with supporters of the initiative and “I don’t intend to have any.”

Jenny Durkan, U.S. attorney for Western Washington, hasn’t had any official discussions on what actions federal law enforcement would take if the ballot measure passes, a spokeswoman said. “We are prohibited from commenting on Initiative 502,” Emily Langlie said. “It’s possible, between now and the election, the Department of Justice will provide further instructions.”

Last year, Ormsby warned dispensaries in Spokane that they faced federal prosecution if they didn’t shut down. A letter from Ormsby and Durkan to Gov. Chris Gregoire prompted the governor to essentially gut a bill that legislators had hammered out to regulate the production and sale of medical marijuana, which was called for in the 1998 ballot measure.

“Growing, distributing and possessing marijuana in any capacity, other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws permitting such activities,” they wrote in April 2011.

I-502 calls for the state to regulate the production, processing and sale of marijuana — and collect taxes on it — through the state Liquor Control Board.

Holmes believes the passage of I-502 could actually ease the federal pressure on medical marijuana dispensaries. It was the proliferation of those facilities and readily available “prescriptions” that helped spur the federal crackdown, he said.

“There are a lot of sham users of medical marijuana,” he said. “The number of dispensaries you see is quite a bit beyond what’s needed for medical marijuana.”

I-502 would likely preclude the need for dispensaries because medical patients could find the drug relatively easily, he added.

State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who is running for governor this fall on the same ballot as I-502, said passage of the measure will create “a serious conflict between state law and federal law.” If state and local officials don’t prosecute marijuana cases, federal prosecutors likely will, he said.

“It’s not a state’s rights issue,” McKenna said: It’s an issue where federal law rules under the Constitution’s supremacy clause.

Like his Democratic opponent for governor, Jay Inslee, Republican McKenna opposes I-502. If the measure passes, one or the other would be faced with dealing with the fallout, although neither has specific plans.

Inslee’s campaign said simply that he would “work with legislators and stakeholders to implement the new law.”

McKenna said he believes the initiative will fail, so he won’t deal with a hypothetical like how he would deal with the U.S. Justice Department. “I don’t want to comment on what could happen on a law that won’t pass.”

Source: Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA)
Copyright: 2012 The Spokesman-Review
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.spokesman.com/
Author: Jim Camden

26 Aug 2012

DEA Tells 23 MMJ Storefronts To Shut Down

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The Drug Enforcement Administration mailed letters Thursday to 23 medical marijuana businesses in Western Washington, warning they could be prosecuted and the properties seized if they are operating within a school zone.

“Please take the necessary steps to discontinue the sale and/or distribution of marijuana…within 30 days,” read the letter, signed by Matthew G. Barnes, special agent in charge of the Seattle office.

Neither the DEA nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which supported the action, would release the names of the 23 dispensaries or disclose which cities they’re located in.

Barnes said in a statement that “additional notifications” will be sent “as necessary.”

“I am confident that once notified of the ramifications and penalties associated with renting a property for marijuana distribution purposes, property owners will take appropriate steps to rectify the situation on their own. The DEA will not turn a blind eye to criminal organizations that attempt to use state or local law as a shield for their illicit drug trafficking activities,” Barnes said in a statement.

The letters, which threaten property forfeiture and criminal prosecution, follow similar federal action against medical marijuana operations in Eastern Washington, Northern California and Colorado targeting storefronts near schools. In other states, the federal actions at times have clashed with state or local laws allowing dispensaries, flaming renewed debate in the 16 states and the District of Columbia which allow medical marijuana.

“We need to enforce one message for our students: drugs have no place in or near our schools,” the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, Jenny Durkan, said in a statement.

Washington’s medical marijuana law doesn’t authorize dispensaries. An effort to legalize and regulate them passed the state Legislature last year, but was vetoed by Gov. Chris Gregorie, leaving Washington with one of the most unregulated medical marijuana industries in the country.

Gregoire’s veto left intact a law that allows 10 patients to band together to form a 45-plant “collective garden.” Some medical marijuana storefronts have used a broad interpretation of that provision to form networks of collective gardens, with off-the-street patients signing into an open slot in a garden.

The state law allows local governments to regulate medical marijuana operations. Seattle, home to more than 140 medical marijuana-related businesses, lightly regulates them, requiring only basic business business licenses and compliance with city building safety codes.

Earlier this week, three people involved in running two Seattle dispensaries pleaded guilty to federal drug-dealing charges following raids on several storefronts in November.

The raids come as Washington voters will be considering legalizing, taxing and regulating recreational marijuana use. Durkan hasn’t spoken out on the measure, Initiative 502, except to remind voters that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

From The Seattle Times Blog

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Jonathan Martin
Published: August 23, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

23 Aug 2012

Feds Take New Action in Crackdown on Dispensaries

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday expanded their crackdown on California medical marijuana dispensaries, filing three lawsuits and sending warning letters to more than 60 clinics in two Orange County cities.

The asset-forfeiture lawsuits filed against landlords who own buildings that house six marijuana shops in Anaheim and the letters order the closure of the clinics or possible criminal charges will be filed.

More than 300 pot stores and grows have been targeted in the Central District of California, which stretches from Santa Barbara to San Bernardino counties, since October when the state’s four U.S. attorneys announced an effort to curb dispensaries.

Prosecutors argue dealers and suppliers are using the state’s medical pot law, approved in 1996, as legal cover for running sophisticated drug-trafficking ventures in plain sight. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Medical marijuana advocates argue the collectives are protected by California law, which allows the drug to be cultivated and supplied to ill people on a nonprofit basis.

The crackdown comes amid a shift by municipalities and law enforcement agencies that say the clinics are abusing the law and in some cases overrunning neighborhoods. Last month, the Los Angeles City Council voted to ban as many as 900 storefront dispensaries in the coming weeks.

A medical marijuana trade group has since sued the city, claiming the ban violated constitutional rights. Activists are also working to qualify a ballot measure to repeal the ban.

In all, 66 warning letters were sent to marijuana dispensaries in Anaheim and La Habra. Some have closed recently, but federal authorities said 38 remain open.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Published: August 21, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Associated Press

« 1 2 3 »